Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2019

Sea Traffic Management (STM) in the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’ perspective Bachelor’s thesis in Master Mariner Program

PHILIP JOHANSSON

TEODOR FLODIN

BACHELOR THESIS 2019:01

Sea Traffic Management (STM) in the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)

From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’ perspective

Bachelor thesis in Mechanics and Maritime Sciences

PHILIP JOHANSSON

TEODOR FLODIN

Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences Division of Maritime Studies

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2019

Sea Traffic Management (STM) in the Vessel Traffic From the Vessel Traffic Service Operators’ perspective PHILIP JOHANSSON

TEODOR FLODIN

© PHILIP JOHANSSON & TEODOR FLODIN, 2019

Bachelor Thesis 2019:01 Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Sweden Telephone: + 46 (0)31-772 1000 Cover: An illustration of Sea Traffic Management tools and how they connect. Created by William Flodin Printing /Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences Gothenburg, Sweden 2019

Sea Tra�c Managements (STM) in the Vessel Tra�c Services (VTS)

From the Vessel Tra�c Service Operators’ perspectivePHILIP JOHANSSONTEODOR FLODINDepartment of Department of Mechanics and Maritime SciencesChalmers University of Technology

Abstract

The digitalization in the shipping industry has during the last decade resulted indi�erent research projects aiming to make the shipping chain more e�ective ande�cient. International Maritime Organization (IMO) has developed a “StrategyImplementation Plan” to help navigate the development in the right direction withdemands which the projects are trying to fulfil. One of the projects is Sea Tra�cManagement (STM) which has developed tools to help assist with decision makingand a more e�cient way of navigating and planning voyages. The tools are aimedtowards the mariners on board but also the operators ashore in the Vessel Tra�cService (VTS).

The aim of this thesis is to get an understanding of what the Vessel Tra�c ServiceOperators (VTSO) think of the STM tools user interface/friendliness, their benefits,and what potential problems they could produce. The results are supported byanswers from a questionnaire collected during full scale simulation testing of theSTM services. This helped to gain a brief understanding in their thought of theSTM tools and how user friendly the tools are. The results were strengthened by fourinterviews of VTSOs who participated in the simulation runs and the questionnaireto get a deeper understanding of the pros and cons on the STM tools. The resultindicated that the tools were over-all user friendly and was to a benefit for theVTSOs with increased foresight and overview.

Keywords: VTS, VTSO, IMO, user friendliness, shipping, STM, Sea Tra�c Man-agement

v

Acknowledgements

We would like to dedicate a special thanks to our supervisors - probably the bestones at Chalmers, Monica Lundh and Katie Aylward, without you two this wouldnot be possible. Your knowledge, clever ideas and motivation was the key to thisreport. A big thank you to Anders Johannesson for helping set up interviews and forsharing your knowledge about the VTS. Of course, thanks to everyone willing to beinterviewed. Also, a big thanks to the Librarians for your willingness to assist andhelp to achieve this. Additionally, we want to thank our lovely friends and familyespecially Carl Olafsson, Frans Wiktorsson and Olle Elander, your cheering hasmeant the world. Lastly, thanks to William for the lovely support with astonishingformatting skills.

Phlip Johansson & Teodor Flodin, Gothenburg, February 2019

vii

Table of Contents

Nomenclature xi

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Background 3

2.1 Vessel Tra�c Service (VTS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Communication in shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 Previous research projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4 STM and their tools for VTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Methodology 9

3.1 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2 Collection of quantitative data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2.1 Scenarios and Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3 Collection of qualitative data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4 Results 13

4.1 Demographic of data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.2 Results from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.2.1 User-friendliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.2.2 Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.3 Results from the interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.3.1 Increased workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5 Discussion 23

5.1 Choice of method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Conclusion 27

6.1 Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References 29

ix

Table of Contents

x

Nomenclature

Abbreviations

AIS Automatic Identification SystemECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information SystemEMSN European Maritime Simulation NetworkIMO International Maritime OrganisationSIP Strategy Implementation PlanSOLAS Safety of Life at SeaSTM Sea Tra�c ManagementVHF Very High FrequencyVTS Vessel Tra�c ServicesVTSO Vessel Tra�c Service Operator

xi

Nomenclature

xii

1Introduction

The world commerce has for centuries needed an e�cient shipping industry and theincreasing trade has set pressure for shipping to have safer navigation and highere�ciency (IALA, 2016). In 1948 vessels started to navigate into harbours throughrestricted visibility assisted by personnel on shore. In the 1960’s and 1970’s sev-eral ship accidents occurred, and the public mass got knowledge about how it couldharm the environment. According to IALA (2016), this set additional pressure fora safer shipping and in 1985 International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adoptedresolution A.578 ‘Guidelines for Vessel Tra�c Service’. This described a detailedplan about how to set up and plan for a Vessel Tra�c Service (VTS) within portsand approaches to achieve safer and more e�cient shipping with the main purposebeing to oversee the vessels and supply with navigational information. Further,IALA (2016) also states that today’s shipping with larger and less manoeuvrablevessels in congested waters carrying hazardous cargoes, is putting the environmentat risk and establishing a VTS contributes to increased safety and e�ciency.

The shipping industry has during the last decades gone through major technicaldevelopments. The operation of the vessel has been a�ected and there has been ashift from analogous equipment to digital, parts of the task’s seafarers used to per-form is now automated. With regards to the work on the bridge and the navigation,electronic charts and conning displays is introduced (IMO, n.d.). This drift towardsdigitalization and the changes in task performance and demands on the crew, hasled to IMO developing supporting documents (IMO, 2015). In 1990 IMO establisheda regulation in Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) chapter V to allow navigation withElectronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) (IMO, n.d.). Accordingto IMO the overall goal is to improve the safety at sea, however in this fast-phasedindustrialization they realized that the shipping could be hampered due to the lackof standardization (IMO, 2015). Furthermore, in 2014 Maritime Safety Committeeapproved an implementation plan “The Strategy Implementation Plan” (SIP) madeby IMO to implement e-Navigation solutions into the shipping (IMO, n.d.). TheSIP contained demands put on the implementation of e-navigation.

This resulted in several European Union research projects developing new systemand tools to help navigation and optimization both on ships and shore units. Someprojects that was started were ACCSEAS and E�cienSea 1 and 2, later came MonaLisa which put focus on testing new tools. As an outcome from Mona Lisa, SeaTra�c Management (STM) was founded, this project aimed to facilitate the navi-gation onboard and enhance the communication. STM o�ers a variety of tools tohelp ships and shore units with e.g. optimizing routes, route sharing with other

1

1. Introduction

ships, port call synchronization, winter navigation. One part of this project wasalso to assess how work at the VTS center will change with the implementation ofthe STM tools. This report will investigate how the work in the VTS could benefitfrom these tools and what the personnel think of the user friendliness and usability.

1.1 Purpose

The main purpose of this report is to investigate how the VTS operators viewthe STM tools user-friendliness and what advantages and disadvantages they couldpresent, based on their experiences with the tools during simulated test runs, andtheir general knowledge about STM.

1.2 Research questions

Two research questions have been formulated for the thesis, that are aimed to beanswered, and are stated as following:

1. From the VTS operators� perspective, how user-friendly are the STM tools?2. What advantages and disadvantages do the VTS operators think the STM

tools have?

1.3 Delimitations

The STM tools are newly developed services, meaning a very limited amount ofVTS operators have used and evaluated them. Therefore, this study has a relativelysmall sample size that is limited to VTS operators who have experience and feedbackrelated to the tools. This research was collected by the STM research team, priorto the development of this thesis. Therefore, the authors were not involved in thedata collection of the questionnaire data from the simulation runs. The authors ofthis paper therefore conducted the follow up interviews to fully immerse themselvesin the research questions.

2

2Background

During 1990, the first versions of electronic chart was implemented as a first step toa more digitized shipping industry according to IMO (n.d.). The organization thusrecognized the necessity to equip ships and shore units concerning safety of shippingwith modern tools, optimized to enhance maritime navigation, communications anddecision making (IMO, 2015). IMO predicted that without any coordination thedevelopment of technology could with lack of standardization prevent the progressof future navigation systems on board ships and shore units. The IMO then de-veloped a strategy plan “The e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP)” toset demands on the advance of shipping technology and digitalization. The SIPcontains several main goals where three of them have an impact on the VTS.

These goals focus on;• E�ciency of the marine information transfer between the concerned users e.g.

ship-to-ship, ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore. The demands of IMO intend tofacilitate the vessel tra�c observations for shore-based facilities including VTS.

• Facilitate the communication between di�erent parts such as ship-ship andship-shore, including, data exchange.

• Integrate and present information, on board and on shore to maximize andbenefit the navigational safety, but also to benefit the workload of the usersthrough a human-machine interface (IMO, 2015).

2.1 Vessel Tra�c Service (VTS)

The world commerce has for centuries needed an e�cient shipping industry and theincreasingly trade has set pressure to the shipping for safer navigation and highere�ciency according to IALA (2016). The manual also says that this pressure hasmade authorities around the world to provide aids to navigate around their coastalwaters started with shore side beacons and lights. After the World War II thenavigational aids of that age were no longer su�cient to take advantage of the fullcapacity of the port facilities writes IALA (2016). They mean that specifically inpoor visibility conditions vessels were delayed which caused further delays and com-plications throughout the entire transport chain both onshore and at sea. Tra�cmonitoring using shore-based radar in combination with VHF-communication wereimplemented to enhance the safety and e�ciency. In 1948, Douglas, Isle of Man werethe first port to establish a radar-based Port station according to IALA (2016). Itis also written that in the 1950’s the approaches and port areas of Rotterdam andAmsterdam had established their own shore-based Radar sites.

3

2. Background

Today the VTS seems a bit di�erent but has maintained the purpose to inform in-coming and outgoing vessels about current tra�c inside the VTS area, and otherinformation that could help the vessels with their navigation in or out of the area.The VTS area are often located in congested waters with a high tra�c density. Theperson in the VTS center, who is actively monitoring the VTS area is called VesselTra�c Service Operator (VTSO). This is the key person within the VTS centre(IALA, 2016). The main task for the VTSO is to monitor either the whole area ora sector of the VTS area depending on size and tra�c density, to support the safetyand fluency of the tra�c. IALA (2016) also states that the VTSO monitoring anarea needs to interact in di�erent situations to improve the safety of the tra�c flow.Further, the VTSO can use di�erent types of equipment to monitor and interactwith tra�c, e.g. radar, AIS and VHF-radio. The VTSO provides a variation ofservices and if an accident occurs or during emergency operations the VTSO canhave responsibility to act and coordinate tra�c and communications while at thesame time maintaining a log of the situation (IALA, 2016).

The VTS are divided in di�erent service levels all aiming to support the vesselswithin the VTS area. The VTS have di�erent types of services depending on whatneed a specific area have. There are three di�erent types of services within a VTS,Information Service, Tra�c Organization Service and Navigational Assistance Ser-vice.

2.2 Communication in shipping

Communication between vessels and vessel to VTS is a key for the operators bothon board the vessels and onshore to get an understanding of the current tra�c sit-uation. An operator working in the VTS need to have a clear vision of the tra�cflow in the VTS area to be able in advance locate any danger or close situationsbetween the vessels in the area. To have situational awareness, di�erent tools suchas VHF-radio, AIS, radar and weather forecasts help the VTSO to receive the inputsneeded (IALA, 2016). The main tool to be used is the VHF-radio, with this toolthe vessels and the VTS can converse to give each other input of the current situ-ation so everyone understands where every vessel is located and what to be expected.

In a research made by Seafarers International Research Centre Acejo et al. (2018)found that the third most identified cause of accidents was failure in communica-tion. The cause of the failure is hard to identify, sometimes it is due to hierarchicalstructure or language restrictions and sometimes it is simply because information isnot passed on (Acejo et al., 2018).

Brödje (2012) describes that communication between vessels and the VTS can varydepending on di�erent factors, there among trust, pattern recognition and proto-col. The factor trust implies that the VTSO refrain from informing the navigatorin trust, that the navigator already has an understanding of what is going on inthe fairway without any confirmation that the navigator actually does. The VTSOsometimes hold back information when they recognise patterns in regard of vessel

4

2. Background

movements in fairway and/or when patterns are recognised concerning communi-cation between vessel to vessel or vessel to VTS. Brödje (2012) also mentions thatprotocol is information that always get communicated because it is bound to reg-ulation and therefore cannot be excluded from communication in the VTS system.This is being illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Sensors Construct

Vessel speed

Vessel location

Traffic intensity

Anomalies

Vessel sizeProtocol

Deviation

Trust

Pattern

VHF

VHF

VHF

Role

tDiscretiont1

Figure 2.1: The figure illustrates filters of the VTSOs information sharing process,what information the VTSOs decides to share and not. Information received fromthe sensor gets filtered by the VTSOs thus sometimes refrain sharing. Adapted withpermission from Brödje (2013).

Communication between vessels and VTS can also vary depending on how manyvessels that are in the area, current tra�c situations and weather conditions (DeVries, 2017). During foggy weather, ships tend to slow down, increase the spac-ing between each other and the communication between vessels and VTS increaseswhich will put on more workload for the VTSO. The variability is something theVTS need to adapt to, every situation is unique, sometimes the situations are easyand sometimes they are more di�cult. Further De Vries (2017) implies that thevariability needs to be manageable, if the communications increase drastically andthe workload becomes overwhelming, the communications can be less e�ective andless e�cient.

5

2. Background

2.3 Previous research projects

To develop the e-Navigation and the tools for better communication, several researchprojects have been carried through, there amongst ACCSEAS, E�cienSea 1 and 2,Monalisa 1 and 2 which later resulted in the development of STM.

ACCSEAS

One of the first project to carry out was ACCSEAS, which purpose was to implementa test bed for e-navigation in the North Sea (ACCSEAS, n.d.). Important resultscame to be an establishment of a regional platform, provided technology, policies,regulations and standards for an improved access in the North Sea. In ACCSEASsimulation test runs, the importance of getting information in time was discovered.That would help the mariners and shore-based units to get an understanding of thenear future surrounding in a clear way (Billesø, 2015).

E�cieanSea and E�cieanSea2

E�cieanSea was a project between di�erent European countries which started afterthe implementation of SIP (E�cienSea, 2011). The goal with the project was toconnect all maritime functions to a central information cloud online. This to beused by the ships to enhance the maritime safety and environment in the BalticSea through smart solutions with e.g. new communication channels between ship toship and ship to coast stations.

E�cieanSea led to the sequel E�cieanSea2, which purpose was to implement whatE�cieanSea started. One of the sought was to implement the VHF Data ExchangeSystem, a system where data quick and cheap could communicate between ship toship and ship to coast station over VHF radio channels (E�cienSea2, n.d.).

Mona Lisa and Mona Lisa 2.0

The first Monalisa project started 2010 where route planning and route sharing wasintroduced as a precursor to STM. The work of Monalisa continued of a developmentof a global maritime data sharing function called “Maritime Cloud” and productionof electronic certificate for maritime o�cers on board (MonaLisa, 2008).

A follow up was made on Monalisa called Monalisa 2.0 which defined the goal ofSTM concept to imply smart solution for the more complex transport chain. STMhas developed a quantity of di�erent tools for making shipping more e�cient such asroute optimization, route exchange between ships, winter navigation and enhancedsurveillance in ports (STM, n.d.). The outcome from this project from a shoreperspective was positive but one concern was raised after a simulation test run, thatworkload could increase when tools were applied to several vessels in an area withhigh tra�c density or in emergency situations (Porathe et al., 2014).

6

2. Background

2.4 STM and their tools for VTS

The development of STM were made in two previous projects, Mona Lisa and MonaLisa 2.0. The STM project has developed e-navigation solutions for both ships andshore to improve information exchange, communication, and promote safety ande�ciency. The STM project has developed a number of tools which are used bythe VTSO including; Ship-to-shore Route Exchange, Chat Function, Route CrossCheck, Route Suggestions, Route Based Prediction Tool, Enhanced Monitoring,Shore Based Navigational Assistance and a Navigational Warning Automated Ser-vice. These tools of communication has been tested in full scale simulation usingEuropean Maritime Simulation Network (EMSN). This simulation network include13 simulation centres in seven di�erent European countries that can run simulationswith up to 37 bridges connected at the same time (Burmeister et al., 2016).

The tools mentioned above are defined below and will hereby be referred to as the"STM tools" or "STM services".

Ship-to-Shore Route Exchange

This service allows vessels to broadcast the next seven waypoints of their intendedroute (Aylward et al., 2018). Route segments are broadcasted through AutomaticIdentification System (AIS) and give additional information to the presently avail-able data obtained by radar/ARPA and AIS. Ship-to-shore route exchange allowsthe VTSO to receive the monitored route of STM enabled vessels in the vicinityand have an overview of their intentions according to Aylward et al. (2018). In realtime, the VTSO will be able to see if the vessel is sailing on the planned route orheading towards possible danger.

Chat Function

The chat function is a standalone software (e.g. Skype) which is integrated intothe ECDIS on board and at the VTS station on shore writes Aylward et al. (2018).The chat function o�ers text communication between the VTSO with STM enabledships. It allows the VTSO and the ship to communicate through other means thanVHF. It allows both parties to review previous agreements with a goal to reduce themisunderstandings commonly experienced over VHF (Aylward et al., 2018).

Route Cross Check

According to Aylward et al. (2018) a VTS centre can receive any planned route andcross check such route against any navigational dangers and if necessary, send aroute suggestion back to the ship.

7

2. Background

Sending Route Suggestions

This service allows the shore-centre to send a suggested route to the ship, to bereviewed by the bridge team and then either accepted or rejected (Aylward et al.,2018). Further Aylward et al. (2018) writes that this service can be used in varioussituations, for example if several vessels are warned to avoid a certain area, theshore centre can plan a route based on all available information and directly sendthis route to the vessel.

Enhanced Monitoring

This tool is only for the VTSO, it does not require any action from the personnelon board other than broadcasting their route to the VTS according Aylward et al.(2018). After having received a ship’s monitored route and schedule, shore centreswill be able to detect if planned schedule is not kept or if ship deviates from mon-itored route. This service alarms the VTS when a vessel is diverting from theirroute which will make the VTSO aware of the situation and can contact the ship inquestion.

Route Based Prediction Tool

This tool shows where two ships will meet if they are following their intended route.This allows the VTSO to have an enhanced overview of upcoming situations and theopportunity to intervene at an earlier stage in a potential close-quarters situation(Aylward et al., 2018).

Navigational Warnings

This service allows the shore centre to send a notification which overlays a Naviga-tional Warning Message directly on the ECDIS. If the Navigational Warning involvesa geographical area to avoid or be aware of, this will be automatically plotted ontothe ECDIS, so it is visible to the bridge team (Aylward et al., 2018).

8

3Methodology

A good way to retrieve accurate results is to use both quantitative and qualitativemethods. First through the quantitative data to pick up interesting observations andto later use in the collection of the qualitative data to get a deeper understanding(Eliasson, 2010). The thesis used a questionnaire as a method to collect quantitativedata and provided the basis for the interviews which included a qualitative datacollection.

3.1 Literature review

For a better understanding of the background connected to the research questions athorough information gathering had been done. The information gathering startedwith understanding the STM project and their tools, this was carried through byreading on their website and the precursors research leading to the founding of STM.When a greater understanding of the STM was established, a more detailed infor-mation connected to our research questions was gathered by searching on Chalmersinternet-based library, searching for keywords like “VTS”, “VTS Operators”, “VTSOperations”, “E-navigation”. More information covering di�erent aspects of VTSand their work was collected from previous theses.

3.2 Collection of quantitative data

To get a better overall understanding on what the VTSOs thought about the tools,quantitative data was acquired from a data-set collected by the help of a ques-tionnaire that followed after a STM tool evaluation run in the EMSN, where twoscenarios were performed. The scenarios tested in the EMSN are described in 3.2.1as well as the experimental design.

3.2.1 Scenarios and Experimental Design

Scenarios

In order to test the STM services, subject matter experts developed two simulatorscenarios, one in the South Western Baltic and another in the English Channel/-Southampton. The scenarios were strategically designed to test the di�erent func-tionalities of the STM Services. The Baltic Scenario tested the use of the STMservices in dense, close quarters tra�c situations whereas the English Channel sce-nario was generally less busy. Each geographical area also had a respective “shorecenter”, one located in Southampton, UK and the other in Gothenburg, Sweden.

9

3. Methodology

The “shore center” functioned as a typical VTS center with additional access to theSTM services and was the point of interest for this study.

Experimental Design

Data were collected in the EMSN over eight days during two non-consecutive weeksin 2018. The EMSN included nine simulation centres, 30 ship bridges, and the twoVTS centres in Gothenburg and Southampton. Both VTS centres held a briefingsession at the beginning of the day for the VTSOs which consisted of informationabout the STM/EMSN, the purpose of the STM services, schedule for the day, andan opportunity to ask questions.

The briefing was followed by a 1.5-hour familiarization session in which the VTSOperators had the opportunity to communicate with vessels and practice using theservices. Once the familiarization session was complete, the first exercise began andlasted for 1.5 hours. The first exercise was always the English Channel Scenario asit was designed to be less busy and provided the VTSOs time to explore the usageof the STM services.

Once the test day was concluded, the VTSOs completed a “post-scenario question-naire” which asked questions about their experiences with the STM services (i.e.usability, workload, user-friendliness, appropriate information, workload, etc.). Theresults from the post-scenario questionnaire are analysed in chapter 4 and discussedin chapter 5.

3.3 Collection of qualitative data

To get more detailed information, qualitative data was gathered through four, 30-40minutes interview sessions with the VTSOs involved in the EMSN simulation testruns. The purpose of using interviews as a method was to get an understanding inwhat the VTSO thought about the STM tools which is essential in order to answerthe research questions. The interviews were semi structured following an interviewguide with allowance of follow-up questions. The questions in the interview guidewere chosen out of the answers given from the questionnaire and additional ques-tions to help answer the research questions. The interviews were recorded and latertranscribed to be sure no details were missed. Before the interviews started theparticipant filled in a consent form which indicated that the interviews were beingrecorded and used in the research. The structure of the interview was divided intoeight sections, where seven of the sections were focusing respectively on di�erentSTM tools with the same questions and the last one was an overall section whichcovered all tools.

For each tool these questions were asked:• What is your general thought of this tool?• What aspects do you think is good?• What aspects do you thinks is bad?

10

3. Methodology

• Do you think this tool would lead to a safer tra�c flow within the VTS area?if so, why?

• Do you think the tool a�ect the workload? How? Why?• How will this tool ease for you as an operator?

For the overall section, the main thought was to get the operators to highlight atool they thought was better and one that was the worse. For this section thesequestions were asked:

• What is your general though of the EMSN simulator runs?• Which of these tools would you say helped you the most? Why?• Which tool would you use the most? Why?• Do you think any of the tools seem like too much or unnecessarily?• If you would be o�ered to use their tools, would you use all? if not, which

would you use?

The questions were sometimes followed by a follow up question depending on whatthey answered, typical follow up questions was, “why?” and “how?”.

Thematic analysis

To analyse the interviews Thematic Analysis was used. This method of analysis isbased on identifying themes within the qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).Basically, this method involves six steps, where the first step is to familiarize withthe data. This involves transcribing and reading and re-reading the entire dataand make notes of initial ideas. Step number two imply to code the data-set andcollate relevant data to each code. In step three, the codes are collated into themes.Later in step four, a review of the themes is made to see if they are applicable tothe whole data-set. Step five is being described by Braun & Clarke (2006) as anongoing analysis to specify every theme and also name them. Lastly, step six whichthe concluding chance for analysis is where a selection of themes is made, it is inthis step the analysis is written in the report in trying to connect to the researchquestions and the purpose of the thesis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

11

3. Methodology

12

4Results

The main result of this project found that the tools of STM is positively perceivedby the VTSOs both in terms of usability and operationally. With help of the STMtools the operator gets a foresight in the tra�c and also receives the ability to planand oversee the situations in a new way. The questionnaire showed slightly lowerevaluations for the “Enhanced Monitoring” tool, which is supported by the inter-views which provided insight into why this was the case.

In the results chapter, section 4.2 and section 4.3 intend to answer each researchquestion respectively based on the results from the data collection.

4.1 Demographic of data collection

Based on the questionnaires and interviews, a demographic analysis was performedwhich resulted in the following demographics.

Demographic of questionnaire results

A total of 16 di�erent VTSOs, 13 (81%) men and 3 (19%) women participated inthe EMSN STM simulations. Eight VTS Operators were from Sweden, six from theUK and two from Norway. The participants were between 20 and 69 years of age.Years of experience as a VTSOs ranged from <1 year, to 11-20 years, with mostVTSOs having between 3-5 years of experience. The current role of the VTSOs var-ied, nine participants currently work as VTS Managers, Operators, or Supervisors,three work as pilots, two as instructors, one as a project leader, and one as a captain.

Demographic of interview results

The interviews were performed on four di�erent VTSOs all (100%) of them weremen from Sweden who participated in the EMSN STM simulation. Two (50%) werebetween 40 and 49 years of age and the other two (50%) were between 60-69 years ofage. The range of VTSO working experience ranged from 1-2 years, to 11-20 yearsdivided in 1-2, 3-5, 6-10 and 11-20 years of experience, with 100% of the participantsat the moment having VTS operator as their current occupancy.

13

4. Results

4.2 Results from the questionnaire

The first research question, stated as: "From the VTSOs� perspective, how user-friendly are the STM tools?", will be answered by using results from two di�erentsections of the used questionnaire. These are analyzed from two perspectives; us-ability and user-friendliness.

4.2.1 User-friendliness

In this section the VTSOs were asked to rate the STM tools regarding their userfriendliness, on a scale 1-7 where 1 = Worst imaginable, 4 = Fair and 7 = Bestimaginable. The values presented in Figure 4.1 are the mean values of each answeron all the questions. The standard deviations have been added in order to see thespread among the answers.

Chat Function Sending RouteSuggestions

Route BasedPrediction Tool

Using Shore BasedNavigationalAssistance

Route Cross Check Enhanced Monitoring

Mean 5,17 4,94 4,8 4,56 4,5 4,36

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

6,5

7User-friendliness

Figure 4.1: The mean value of all the answers from the “User-friendliness” Section.

4.2.2 Usability

In this section of the questionnaire the VTSOs were asked to in which extent theyagree on the usability perceptions stated in Figure 4.2-4.8. The scale is from 1 to 5,where 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neutral and 5 is strongly agree. The value presentedis the mean value of all the answers and the standard deviation to see the spreadamong the answers. For example, in Figure 4.3, “Easy to use” got a mean value of4.32, which would translate into agree/strongly agree.

14

4. Results

Learn to use very quickly Easy to use Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 4 3,65 3,41 2

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5 Ship-to-shore Route Exchange

Figure 4.2: This shows the result of the tool “Ship to Shore Route Exchange”.The dotted bars illustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and thediagonal lined bars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 4,32 4,05 3,53 1,58

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Chat Function

Figure 4.3: Shows result of the “Chat Function”. The dotted bars illustrate a state-ment that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined bars for statementthat is negative for user friendliness.

15

4. Results

Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 4 3,79 3,36 1,79

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5Route Cross Check

Figure 4.4: Shows result of the “Route Cross Check”. The dotted bars illustratea statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal lined bars forstatement that is negative for user friendliness.

Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 3,94 3,83 3,28 1,89

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5Sending Route Suggestion

Figure 4.5: Shows result of the “Sending Route Suggestion”. The dotted barsillustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal linedbars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

16

4. Results

Learn to use very quickly Easy to use Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 4,15 4 3,54 1,54

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5Route Based Prediction Tool

Figure 4.6: Shows result of the “Route Based Prediction Tool”. The dotted barsillustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal linedbars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

Learn to use very quickly Easy to use Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 3,56 3,22 3 2,11

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5Enhanced Monitoring Tool

Figure 4.7: Shows result of the “Enhanced Monitoring Tool”. The dotted barsillustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal linedbars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

17

4. Results

Easy to use Learn to use very quickly Functions well integrated Need the support of atechnical person

Mean 3,77 3,7 3,23 1,85

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5Shore Based Navigation Tool

Figure 4.8: Shows result of the “Shore Based Navigation Tool”. The dotted barsillustrate a statement that is positive for user friendliness and the diagonal linedbars for statement that is negative for user friendliness.

4.3 Results from the interviews

The second research question aims at answering the questions "What advantagesand disadvantages do the VTSOs think the STM tools have?". During the analysis,two main themes and four sub themes were discovered which are shown in Table 4.1below and will be expanded upon within the sub-sections below.

Table 4.1: An overview of the two main themes and the four sub themes that weredistinguished in the analysis.

Main Themes Sub-themes

4.2.1 Foresight 4.2.1.1 Overview4.2.1.2 Less verbal communication

4.2.2 Increased workload 4.2.2.1 Increased level of alarms4.2.2.2 Too much information

The di�erence between foresight and overview might be vague, but in this re-port, foresight focuses more on the ability to plan for the VTSO itself in advance.Overview is more the ability to see how the vessels planned and what is happeningin real time.

18

4. Results

Foresight

The key word that was mentioned the most was the importance of foresight, andthe ability to in advance see how the in, and outgoing vessels have planned, andalso sort of plan it for the operator him/herself. One question about the operators’general thoughts about STM, one person answered that with help from the toolsthe operator are able to check, change and plan for a later stage.

“It’s a lot of ups and downs in the tra�c density, so now in the morningI would not be able to change or check any routes, but now when thetra�c got less, you can sit down and check routes and maybe suggestsome changes to it, so when the next rush comes you have prepared it.”

Another thing that was mentioned was that the tra�c gets more controlled and thenumber of unexpected events decrease. A contributing tool in this case was meantto be “Route Cross Check” a tool letting the VTSO validate a planned route in anearly stage. One operator said that you get knowledge in before of how someonehas planned, and you can expect more predictability.

“You get a sort of predictability of how they are supposed to drive, it’snot as individual as now, every vessel does not have to make their ownroute plan in the same way. . . . if you get your route validated and theroute is fairly similar every time, the chance for surprises decrease”

This participant also meant that this will contribute to the area becoming morecontrolled, similar to the Tra�c Separation System and mentioned the parable withit. Overall the participants found the tools having positive a�ect to their foresight.

Overview

The tool that had the most positive feedback in both the questionnaire and the in-terviews was the tool “Route Based Prediction”, a tool that shows where two shipswill meet if they followed their intended route. This was appreciated by the opera-tors because it would give them a heads up in advance that these ships may headin to close-quarters situation and it would be easier for the operators to understandand act on the situation. A participant in the interviews explained that if you inadvance could see where two vessels potentially were going meet it would be easierto do small adjustments early to avoid meeting in critical points.

“I could imagine that it would be useful to sometimes see. . . Out of aVTS-perspective but also for the ships to see where you will meet, espe-cially if it is close to congested waters so that you could adjust the speedto avoid meeting in critical points.”

One operator during the interview started o� initially when talking about the tool“Enhanced Monitoring” that it would increase the workload of the operator becausethe increasing amount of alarms but with the right modification it could improvethe overview. He suggested that if you could define an area to where these alarms

19

4. Results

could be helpful, it would limit the alarms and meanwhile increase the situationalawareness and overview.

“It could in some cases increase your attention to a situation that yousometimes miss. You could take a problem area where incidents havehappened before and aim the tool that it would alarm if they deviate fromthe route in such a specific area. So, when an alarm sounds it is rele-vant.”

Less verbal communication

Another recurring theme was the aspect of verbal communication, all of the partic-ipants had in common the perception about decreased verbal communication. Themain tool contributing to this fact was meant to be the “Ship-to-shore Route Ex-change”. A common thought about the tool was the idea of less misunderstandingsoccurs if the VTSO are able to see the intentions of a vessel, this brings the knowl-edge about which vessels will be involved in di�erent situations.

“You were able to see immediately which vessels who were going to beinvolved, and then you only had to contact the ones involved, then youavoid talking to someone who’s not going into the a�ected area for ex-ample”

One major thing that was mentioned were the facilitated ability to communicate in-formation about a certain position in latitude and longitude, which was often meantto be misunderstood in verbal communication.

“The chat function, yes I think this also increase the safety when it comesto misunderstanding and such, it’s easier to misunderstand each otherverbally, of course it happens in text communication as well, but someinformation is a lot easier to communicate in text, such as positions orsimilar”

To be able to see who is going to be a�ected by a certain situation and the decreasingmisunderstandings would reduce the amount of verbal communication. One operatormeant that this implies the verbal communication would then be more important,the VHF will only be used in more important situations or for more important in-formation. Another comment to the “Ship-to-shore Route Exchange” were that itwould reduce the radio communication, and it therefore became more of importance.

“If you know where a vessel is about to turn it implies less VHF-communication,and less risk of misunderstanding, it would for sure reduce the verbalcommunication, which then entails the information on the VHF becom-ing more important"

The “Chat Function” showed very positive results both in the quantitative dataand the quantitative, one explanation from the interviews were that it reduced the

20

4. Results

verbal communication and it did confluent good with the other tools. Accordingto the participants they mostly used the chat together with other tools such asthe “Sending Route Suggestions”, first they suggested a route and then sent a shortmessage to the vessel with an explanation. Reduced verbal communication improvedthe work of the operators according to all the participants.

4.3.1 Increased workload

In the interviews the topic workload was presented to which di�erent aspects andconcerns came up. The main problem the VTSO brought up was the fear of in-creasing amount of alarms. Another concern that was brought up when mentioningworkload was the possibility for giving too much information, i.e. when many routesare presented at the same time, it could be more stressful and increase the amountof time to understand a scenario.

Increased numbers of alarms

The tool with least positive results in the questionnaire was “Enhanced Monitor-ing” which had an alarm function when a ship deviates from its route. Apparentlybecause the increasing number of alarms was not appreciated by the operators, ac-cording to the interviewees. Participants meant it would increase the workload anddraw attention from what might be more important.

“I think it (enhanced monitoring) would a�ect the workload negatively,but you don’t get any winnings from it, of course sometime it could getwinning out from it, but i think in general it will be an alarm that’s getsmuted and won’t get any attention in the end, you want to have an alarmwhen it’s for real something that can go wrong.”

This function was perceived to create unnecessary alarms, several participants saidthat vessels might deviate from their route without being in risk of danger. Onemeant that in narrow waters there is a lot of obstacles to avoid i.e. fishing vessels,buoys and pleasure boats etc. Therefore, it is not always dangerous if a vessel devi-ates from their planned route. As said in previous citation, the VTSOs appreciatesalarms, but preferably only when it is a serious situation, the other alarms are un-necessary alarms. One perception about too many alarms is that it contributes toneglecting the alarms in the end.

“I see a direct risk of increasing amount of alarms and increasing amountof alarm tend to lead to not listen to the alarm at all and only constantlymuting them.”

The VTSOs who got interviewed had a similar function in their VTS center inwhich on their monitoring screen had highlighted areas in di�erent critical naviga-tion points which they call no-go areas. If a ship would pass that point the systemwould raise an alarm. The problem they explained about this system was duringsummertime when sailing vessels and pleasure boats entered the highlighted areas,

21

4. Results

alarms was constantly triggered, which they thought increased their workload.

“That is the problem with our no-go areas, in the summertime we havesailing vessels entering the areas and triggers the alarms. . . It triggersall the time and at last no one cares and only mute the alarms.”

The common thought about increasing amount of alarm is that it would harm thework of the VTSOs.

Too much information

Another concern about the tools were that the screen might be too informationheavy. The interviews showed that the participants were worried that the screenwould present too much information. Several operators said that “Ship-to-shoreRoute Exchange” could create confusion if too many routes were displayed at onceor if it was heavy tra�c or an emergency situation.

“You want to see how they (the vessels) have planned, but I don’t wantto see it all the time because it will create disturbance, if it’s lot of tra�c.”

This occasion perceived to occur in more narrow waters heavily tra�cked, examplesas the Sound and the sound of Gibraltar was brought up. It was meant these ar-eas might easily be too crowded to use the “Ship-to-shore Route Exchange” due tooverwhelming information.

“I could imagine places like Gibraltar or the Sound, if everyone showstheir route it only creates a conglomeration”

Although this tool was overall appreciated when used in the simulations, the ex-perience of too much information were mostly speculations more than observationstherefore the high evaluations on the questionnaire.

22

5Discussion

Digitalization and e-navigation are creating challenges for the industry amongst lackof standardization and a need of a more e�cient communication. This developmenthas generated a need for research in the area to establish a more e�cient way tomonitor the tra�c and enhance the communication. Other ways to communicate in-formation like route exchange, has been researched in other projects like ACCSEAS(Billesø, 2015) and Mona Lisa 1 and 2 (MonaLisa, 2012). Following the Mona Lisaproject, the STM was initiated with the purpose to make the shipping industrysafer, more e�cient and provide the di�erent parties with e�cient ways of commu-nication. The result from the questionnaire included in the STM project indicatethat the VTSOs are over-all positive to the STM tools, especially the usability ofthe “Chat Function”, “Sending Route Suggestions” and the “Route-based Predic-tion Tool”.

Further the interviews gave a deeper understanding as to why the VTSOs think theirwork could benefit from these tools. Elements such as “Foresight and overview” werefactors that was considered to be enhanced by the tools. With regards to the resultsthis was said to help the VTSOs ability to plan ahead and in time be able to predictupcoming future situations and thus be given time to act before situations becomescritical. This could also positively a�ect the workload which results from the MonaLisa project has raised as a concern saying that the workload could be expected toincrease when too much information was presented at the same time (Porathe et al.,2014). The interviews in this study also addressed this as possible problem as thetool “Ship-to-shore Route Exchange” was considered as a potential disturbance forthe VTSO if many routes were presented at the same time. Even though this concernwas raised during the interviews the tool was popular and seen as an asset in thefuture work of a VTSO. However, the operators’ thoughts about increased workloadmight be a question about how skilled they were with the tools, if they had more ex-perience with these instruments it might be perceived to positively a�ect their work.

According to Acejo et al. (2018) communication failure is the third most commonreason for accidents, failure can occur because of information is simply not passedon between di�erent parties. Brödje (2012) argues that communication betweenship and shore to some extent is filtered. We think this information that is “simplynot passed on” can be due to these filters, Brödje explained. He describes thatfor instance trust, can block the communication, and the sender, in trust believesthe receiver already knows the information that is about to be communicated, thusdo not pass it on. According to the results of the interviews several participantsperceived the tools to enhance the communication due to the reduced verbal infor-

23

5. Discussion

mation exchange thus reducing the risk of misunderstandings. The tool that wasfound to contribute the most to decrease the misunderstandings was the “RouteBased Prediction Tool”, this perception might be due to these filters were not in-terfering. The tools of STM could in some respects replace parts of this verbalinformation that normally gets filtered out like confirming intended route of a ship,the information is presented on a screen instead of communicated over VHF andthus contribute to increase the safety by making the communication more e�ective.In alignment with these results the “Ship-to-Shore Route Exchange”, “Route basedPrediction Tool” and “Chat Function” was also argued to decrease the verbal com-munication and thus reduce the variation of the amount of communication which DeVries (2017) found as a potential problem. The results of that study gave evidencethat shows that the varying amount of communication could increase the workloadfor the VTSO.

The results of user-friendliness from the questionnaire shows the tool that was leastdesired was “Enhanced Monitoring”. This was also confirmed and explained in theinterviews and the reason was the fear of the increasing amount of alarm that couldadd to the workload. The participants in the interviews explained that this tool wassimilar to one of their tools they already use which also had a tendency to give a lotof faulty alarms. The interviews showed that the STM tool “Enhanced Monitoring”could actually decrease the workload. A thought about “Enhanced Monitoring”were that it could, if used in certain way, be contributing to an easier monitoring.One VTSO during the interviews said that if it would be possible to allow alarmsfrom this tool in one or some specific areas within the VTS area it could be beneficialfor both the workload and the ability to monitor the tra�c.

The results in this thesis shows that the STM tools overall aligns with IMOs SIP.In the user-friendliness section, all the tools showed positive results, but duringthe interviews the tool “Enhanced Monitoring” produced weaker results due to thepotential increase in amount of alarms, which could to some extent increase theworkload for the VTSOs. This is the only tool according to our result that contra-dicts the demands set in IMO’s SIP (IMO, 2015). The results from the interviewsand in connection with similar research like Brödje (2012) and De Vries (2017),shows that the tools excluding “Enhanced Monitoring”, benefit the workload forthe VTSOs which aligns with IMOs goal to ease the monitoring of the vessels andfacilitate the vessels tra�c observation for the VTS centres (IMO, 2015).

24

5. Discussion

5.1 Choice of method

Because the target groups were limited a questionnaire was not enough to strengthenthe study and another method had to complement the results. Combining methodsis a good way to get a more complete picture of the results (Eliasson, 2010). Thechoice of the mix-method approach in this paper were used to give a comprehen-sive view of the STM tools directed towards the VTSOs. The questionnaire gave astatistical analysis of how the tools were apprehended and the interviews an expla-nation of their opinion. Eliasson (2010) writes that to get a measured number on aresearch e.g. how good something is perceived; quantitative data is to be preferred.Eliasson (2010) also brings up that quantitative data is better to illustrate what atarget group in general think in a certain question. This was appropriate for thefirst question of this study because it could easily be illustrated with numbers anddiagrams. Since the authors of this report were not involved in the questionnairedata collection, it was di�cult to fully understand the intent of all the questions,and therefore properly interpret the results. It would have been optimal to havebeen involved from the beginning of the STM project. Some of the questions inthe form were a bit vague and the underlying thought of why some questions werephrased in certain ways could be of interest to give more understanding to the re-sults. The result from the quantitative data could vary if the target group had alarger population which might had given a more nuanced result. Another way ofcollecting the qualitative data could be for example focus groups, but this methodis harder to set up logistic wise where everybody has to able to attend at the sametime. Using observations to gather qualitative data were unmanageable though thetest runs were performed months earlier. Interviews was thought to suit the partic-ipators best because of their working hours.

For a research to be reliable, the results of the research should be consistent (Kvale,1997). In this study it would increase the reliability if more simulation runs withthe same or a similar questionnaire would reflect the results collected in this re-search. This was not possible to achieve but to counter this, interviews was doneto support the answers from the questionnaire. The time between the test runs andthe interviews could have reduced the reliability, but the quantitative data from thequestionnaire is reflected in the qualitative result from the interviews which couldbe considered to make the results reliable. All of those who were interviewed hadbeen involved in the STM EMSN test runs. The familiarization before these runswas only about 1,5 hours meaning that the knowledge about the tools and theiroperation was limited, which could reduce the reliability. In the most desirable case,the VTSOs had better knowledge about the tools and the interviews had been per-formed in connection to the questionnaire. When analysing the data collected fromthe interviews both authors analysed the data privately for themselves and thenlater compared the founding, in this case the conclusions were very similar whichalso is a factor that would increase the reliability. During test runs evaluating toolsof MonaLisa project, concerns about increased workload due to too much presentedinformation was raised (Porathe et al., 2014). STM tools similar to the ones ofMonalisa raised the same concerns, which would increase the reliability.

25

5. Discussion

The validity in this study would mean that the investigation that was done, actu-ally researched what was supposed to be researched (Eliasson, 2010). This impliesthat the methods actually relate to the purpose and research questions set for thisstudy. This was accomplished through the questionnaire because the questions wereaimed at usability of the tools which fulfills one part of the purpose of this thesisrelated to user friendliness. The interview guide was constructed together with thequestionnaire in order to grasp what questions to ask and what to be extra attentiveto. The interviews aim was to cover the purpose of what benefits or problems thetools could have, and in such way the method could be considered valid.

The validity in an interview that would be considered is the reliability of the answersgiven from the person being interview and the quality of the interview being done(Kvale, 1997). The answers from the VTSOs in the interviews was similar to eachother which would indicate that the reliability of the answers was good. Moreinterviews would of course increase the reliability. The quality of the interviewscould be discussed, no one of the authors had done interviews before which could ifthe authors been more experienced give a more qualitative result. To help counterthe inexperience an interview guide was made, and the questions was reviewed bya more experienced researcher. The guide was good to keep the interview withinsubject and to limit the answers to be connected to the purpose of this thesis.

26

6Conclusion

The results of the STM tool testing have proven to meet the goals of IMOs SIPwith regards to facilitating both the communication and the ability to monitor thevessel tra�c, according to the personnel at the VTS center. The interviewed par-ticipants had a positive view of the tools and thought it would benefit their futureworkplace with increased foresight and a better ability to overview the VTS area.The questionnaire found the STM tools to be user-friendly with a slight di�erencebetween each, but all of them had a mean value of greater than 4 in a scale of 1 to 7,which concludes the tools to be more than “fairly” user-friendly. The only concernswere about two tools perceived to increase the workload due to increased level ofalarms and concerns about information overload. These results indicating increasedworkload could be a�ected of the habit using the tools, which could be di�erent ifthe participants were more experienced with the systems. The research found sometools decreased the workload as well and according to the VTSOs, overall STM willbenefit their workload.

6.1 Future research

During the interviews the attendants came up with some suggestions to improve thetools of STM one is stated in the discussion section, about “Enhanced Monitoring”the ability to allow these alarms in certain sectors were one suggestion. A futureresearch could be about how the tools can be improved to fit the VTSOs better, in-volving their opinions and their suggestions. Same goes with the personnel onboard,how would they like the tools to be for maximum usability? During the interviewsthe participants briefly explained how they used the tools; one interesting studywould be to research how the VTSOs use the tools with observations as a methodto see how much the STM implementation would change the work of the operators.Even though this study is small it points out the importance of evaluating the hu-man centered design to make new technology beneficial for example the work load.The need of human factors involvement is necessary to the successful developmentof the e-Navigation.

27

6. Conclusion

28

References

ACCSEAS. (n.d.). About ACCSEAS. Retrieved 2018-11-15, from http://www.accseas.eu/about-accseas/

Acejo, I., Sampson, H., Turgo, N., Ellis, N., & Tang, L. (2018). The causes ofmaritime accidents in the period 2002-2016. Cardi� University.

Aylward, K., Weber, R., Lundh, M., & Mackinnon, S. (2018). The Implementation ofe-Navigation Services : Are We Ready ? The Royal Institute of Naval Architects.

Billesø, M. (2015). ACCSEAS Final Report Review of ACCSEAS Solutions throughtests and demonstrations. Retrieved from http://www.accseas.eu/content/download/8190/74102/ACCSEAS%2520Final%2520Report%2520v1.pdf

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology []. QualitativeResearch in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brödje, A. (2012). Hello, is there anybody out there - just nod if you can hear me.Chalmers University Of Technology.

Burmeister, H.-c., Weber, R., & Siwe, U. (2016). EUROPEAN MARITIME SIM-ULATOR NETWORK (Vol. 211).

De Vries, L. (2017). Work as done? Understanding the practice of so-ciotechnical work in the maritime domain. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.chalmers.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ir01368a&AN=cpl.249425&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=sitehttps://research.chalmers.se/publication/249425

E�cienSea. (2011). WP-4 e-Navigation. Retrieved 2018-11-16, from http://www.e�ciensea.org/default.asp?Action=Details&Item=402

E�cienSea2. (n.d.). Communication Channels. Retrieved 2018-11-16, from https://e�ciensea2.org/solution/communication-channels-2/

Eliasson, A. (2010). Kvantitativ Metod Från Början (2:1 ed.).

IALA. (2016). Vessel Tra�c Services Manual, Edition 6.

29

References

IMO. (n.d.). Electronic Nautical Charts (ENC) and Electronic Chart Display andInformation Systems (ECDIS). Retrieved 2018-11-15, from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/ElectronicCharts.aspx

IMO. (2015). Strategy for the development and implementation of e-navigation,MSC 85/26/Add.1, ANNEX 20 (Vol. 11).

Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun.

MonaLisa. (2008). Project Brochure. Retrieved from http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/29163/MONALISA_BROSCHYR.pdf

MonaLisa. (2012). CONCEPT FOR ACTIVITY 1: DYNAMIC & PROACTIVEROUTES OR “GREEN-ROUTES”.

Porathe, T., Vries, L. D., & Prison, J. (2014). Ship voyage plan coordination in theMONALISA project : user tests of a prototype ship tra�c management system..

STM. (n.d.). STM Services. Retrieved 2018-11-20, from http://stmvalidation.eu/stm-services/

30